The Polls Come Back to Earth (Report)

[Nambe]

t r u t h o u t - Staff Report

It has been a wild week for numbers. Immediately after the Republican Convention, Time and Newsweek released poll numbers indicating a significant bounce for George W. Bush, and an 11 point lead over John Kerry. A few days go by, however, and the air appears to have been let out of the tires.

The new Rasmussen poll has the two Presidential candidates tied 47.3% to 47.3%. This leads to an inescapable conclusion: If all these numbers are correct - Time, Newsweek and Rasmussen - then Mr. Bush has suffered an historic cratering in his poll numbers within 100 hours of the close of his party's convention.

But perhaps the ballyhooed post-convention lead enjoyed by Bush never existed at all. Pollster John Zogby says, "I have Mr. Bush leading by 2 points in the simple head-to-head match up - 46% to 44%. Add in the other minor candidates and it becomes a 3 point advantage for the President - 46% to 43%...it simply is not an 11 point race. It just isn't."

It should be noted that Rasmussen provided the core data for both the TIME and Newsweek polls. Their independent interpretation of the very same data produced dramatically different conclusions than those reached by TIME and Newsweek.


Very Good Voter’s Guide

[goforit]

1. Ahhh Haaaa!!!!.....so the truth behold!!!.....It is all interpretation!!!

Kerry????

You better start kicking and litterally start pouring your heart
out!!!

[svan81]

2. lol

oh well

[Mr_Spock]

3. WHAT?? Time and Newsweek INTERPRETED poll results?

WTF is that all about? Sounds criminal - there should be some sort of FAIRNESS DOCTRINE eh? :eyes:

[mike_c]

7. you always interpret poll results....

It's how you do it that matters. If lying with statistics was a criminal offense..., well, you get the picture....

[Catch22Dem]

8. Fairness Doctrine?

I know not of what you speak, but it sounds FANTASTICAL!!! :eyes: :evilgrin:

[shockingelk]

11. You have to decide who is a likely voter

And all the pollsters do it differently. Nobody denies that polling is an artful science.

And I never thought the TIME and Newsweek polls were surprising - they were taken while the media was all Bush all the time.

[NMDemDist2]

4. isn't that amazing

lies, damn lies and statistics

[mike_c]

5. this is an important piece of information....

"...Rasmussen provided the core data for both the TIME and Newsweek polls. Their independent interpretation of the very same data produced dramatically different conclusions than those reached by TIME and Newsweek."

This says that the Newsweek poll did not independently confirm the result of the "Time poll", as those rags would have had us believe. At best, it suggests that they interpreted the same data in the same way independently, but it's not only common for two parties to misinterpret the data if they bring the same biases to the table, there's also no reason-- given their records-- to assume that that even arrived at their interpretations independently. That Rasmussen drew an entirely different conclusion from the same data sends up a red flag. This isn't rocket science-- polling and data interpretation usually fails the worst when it's not performed dispassionately. It REALLY sounds like Time and Newsweek had ulterior motives....

[mom cat]

6. It's a statistical item called finagles constant. That is the number

that you multiply the real answer by to get the number you want. The trick is not to overdo it or you might get caught with your pants down like Time and Newsweek.

[K. F. Gibbons]

13. I used to date a girl named Constance Finagles

And she alwasy over did it when I had my pants down.

[mom cat]

14. I can see that even thinking about her rattles you into misspelling!

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[K. F. Gibbons]

16. Im From Texes, Sory.

[mom cat]

22. I'm from Texez too! Welcome to DU By the way, after my post last nigh

i thought of another retort: "Boy, it looks like she really got your number!"
I am up in Boston now. Where are you?

[Nambe]

9. IMO poll numbers need to reflec actual votes to a degree.

If you are going to manipulate vote counts in high population density areas (as papa bush has been caught doing while in the CIA), you must manipulate polling data before the election to avoid suspicion. For that reason, I find myself very suspicious of polls alltogether.

[Zorra]

10. The polls are going to have to support electronic voting results.

The media cannot make the same mistakes they made in 2002, when Max Cleland was leading Saxby Chambliss in the Georgia Senate race by about 10 points in the polls the day before the election.

But then the "miracle of the black boxes" occurred, and Chambliss "defeated" Cleland when the electronic voting machine results were tallied.

It's pretty much common knowledge that Chambliss stole the election through the use of the black boxes. Other elections, where Dems were leading republicans by fairly wide margins in polls, were also stolen by electronic voting fraud in 2000 and 2002.

The point is that the wide poll margins that put the loser of the election ahead prior to the election raised some eyebrows and suspicions. So the media is probably under orders to keep Bu$h ahead in the polls so that the electronic voting machines can be used to steal the election without raising too much public suspicion.

If the polls were conducted fairly and the results reported accurately, Kerry would probably ahead of Bu$h in the polls by 10 or 15 percent.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

20. Yes. Important to conduct own and third party exit polls. . . . nt

[fearnobush]

12. Let Them Know

CNN- (404) 827 – 1500
CNN TV: <http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv />
CNN.com: <http://www.cnn.com/feedback/dotcom >
Thanks to xultar for these:



<[e-mail] >












_________________________________________________________________
MORE:
<[e-mail] > Newsweek
<[e-mail] > Keith Olbermann
<mailto:[e-mail] > Washington Post
<[e-mail] > MSNBC Main
<[e-mail] > Chris Matthews
And don’t forget the lovely and charming Brit Hume at the Pox Network…

888-369-4762

[GoddessOfGuinness]

15. Check out this Zogby link:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=858

As Republican delegates say goodbye to the glitter and fanfare of Madison Square Garden, self-identified investor voters say they now favor President Bush over John Kerry by an eleven point spread (49% vs. 38%) according to a Zogby/Wall $treet Week with FORTUNE poll conducted on August 30th through September 2nd.


This is where the "11 point lead" came from. I wonder what percentage of those self-identified investors is republican? If it's what I'm thinking, this is not such great news for Dumbyass.

[JDPriestly]

18. Investor class

What self-respecting Democrat would identify him/herself as a member of the "investor class"? What does "investor class" mean? that you own a few shares in mutual funds? that you dabble in gambling on the stock market from time to time? or that you live on income from your investments, don't have to work and own enough stock to have a voice in who sits on the board of directors of companies? I think the latter. But, there are lots of conservatives who think they are members of the "investors class" because they own a few shares in mutual funds. They just have no idea about what the word "wealthy" really means.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

19. Sounds to me like Dumbya's having difficulty

convincing his own, if he can't manage more than an 11 point lead among repigs.

[moondust]

17. "Who was ahead on Labor Day?"

Repeat question continuously until November.

[Algomas]

21. The fact that they are running neck and neck...

says a lot about how ignorant Americans are. It also should be a wake the f*ck up call to Kerry. His milquetoast Bu$h-lite bumbling approach is a total failure.